Evil - or is that too simple?

[Chaos]

This one stems from the discussions at "Politics, Current Events and History", but I think it is a general enough issue to put it here instead.

Certain people in this forum (you know who I mean) have been generously applying the label "evil" to the people that in their opinion should be fought by whatever means at hand.
I was accused of being "evil blind" for not agreeing with the "whatever means at hand" part.

So I started thinking...what is "evil", actually? (You´ll notice I put the word in " " because I don´t like it)

Objectively, "evil" means something like " acting against the moral standards of the one using the word ´evil´".
However, I think that just calling anyone who disagrees violently enough "evil" is a too simple solution for moral problems.

Once someone is deemed "evil", he´s irredeemably wrong and criminal and dangerous and whatever. Nothing that he does can possibly be right. On the other hand, anyone who is presumably fighting that "evil one" is automatically considered "morally good", and everything he does is unquestionably good and right. Anything this "good one" does, no matter if it really relates to fighting "evil", no matter it his approach to fighting "evil" really works, is justified.

What is even more, once someone has become "evil", no one ever asks the question why this someone is doing what he does. It does no longer matter if he had reasons for it, if he might have been provoked, or he is really adressing injustices that actually exist. He is "evil", he needs no motivation beyond being "evil", so why waste time trying to find out his motivation? Incidentally, this happens to benefit those who happen to have had a hand in causing that motivation - and sometimes these are also the ones who happen to be calling the "evil one" that.



I hope I have made clear that (in my opinion) using categories such as "good" and "evil" does not help really resolve something. It can only fuel hatred, since no one likes being called "evil" and treated as such, and increase violence, since as long you are called "evil", or call your enemy "evil", any interaction except by violence is impossible.

I would greatly appreciate it if those who answer to this post would limit themselves to answering in a rational, objective way, not with rants like I have seen elsewhere.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Evil is essentially that which a society deems to be against its own interests, whatever those may be. It is a useful concept, though the actual term 'evil' has been tainted, I think, by too close an association with theistic morality, but that's another point.

The problem with evil arises when it is used to label a person or a group of people, rather than the actions they commit. Thus, for example, we go from believing that drug use is against our society's interest and therefore evil, on to the belief that the drug user is an evil person. This has the effect of dehumanising the individual(s) concerned, which is where the danger lies. Once someone is considered other than human, they no longer receive the same considerations by society as the humans do. This allows the use of "whatever means at hand" to deal with them.

Rather ironically, it seems that fundies may have hit upon this first, in theory, if not in practice, as noted by the adage "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

Anyway, to summarise:
Evil: good concept, may need a new word to dissociate it from some of its connotations
Evil people: bad idea, leads to much suffering

(And if you happen to be from a society that has no problem with recreational drug use, feel free to substitute some suitable example from your own culture. We all have our evils.)

[Bentspoon]

I have said it before on this forum. EVIL is a word that should go the way of the other 4 letter words - not for polite society.

It is a word only conjured to derride or to unjustly label. It has great inciteful power like the word "ni**er". It polarizes and does not do one positive thing. Not even when terrorists are labelled evil does the word have any productive use.

I have never heard the word used in any sense except to unjustly derride this group or another.

Particularly atheists.

In short Evil is Evil.


I wish people would let it go.

Bentspoon

[hammegk]

Presumably then no one can think of any behavior, not the person, the behavior of itself, "evil"?

Another minor quirk for those who believe "all is relative".

[Bikewer]

I listen to "Talk of the Nation" on NPR a lot, usually fairly intelligent discussions of current events.

They must have been short of speakers, cause' a couple of weeks ago they had an author (senility-can't remember the guy's name) who had just written a book on "Evil".

The guy naturally insisted that evil was a "real force", and that it was responsible for all sorts of things, and seemed to "infect" various people or groups at various times.

I got the impression he wanted to say the big "S" word, but couldn't quite bring himself to do it with the NPR audience.

Havn't heard such tripe on NPR in a while.

[a_unique_person]

Evil is the lazy persons way of explaining something.

There was a serial killer in my area a few years ago. What he did to young women was absolutely revolting. But I don't believe he was evil. Whatever it is in our brain that gives us a sense of social responsibility was just missing or distorted. People are born with other parts of their bodies not functioning correctly. Some are born without arms or legs. The idea that the brain will not have some flaw, either from birth or upbringing, is crazy. His family, who have produced no other homicidal siblings, said he was dropped on his head when he was young. Who knows. He apparently liked to kill young animals as a child. Not just the pulling wings of flies business, but genuinely gruesome acts on pets.

As was pointed out before, if you are going to believe in 'Evil', then it opens up a whole can of worms, such as where is this evil coming from.

[c4ts]

Evil is a quality, not a cause for anything. Evil doesn't make you do things, you do things that are evil.

These people are confused. Objects don't belong to a quality, the quality belongs to the object! How many times can I repeat myself? Gaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! (foams at mouth)

[Yahweh]

Sometimes you just come across a bad apple in the bunch...

[Yahzi]

Evil is hypocrisy - doing to others what you would not done to you.

It exists and is real, just as good is. But it's not a "force." C4ts is right.

[Lord Kenneth]

Evil is a name given to actions or particular things that are harshly looked down upon by society.

[ImpyTimpy]

Evil is simply a concept... Best way to define true evil would be concious decision to commit acts of cruelty or deprevation of other's rights for no apparent reason.

In that sense, an insane person is not evil, since they lack the mechanism to make a decision to harm people. Harming someone in self defense is not evil. Harming someone for the hell of it is. :)

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by hammegk
Presumably then no one can think of any behavior, not the person, the behavior of itself, "evil"?

Another minor quirk for those who believe "all is relative". there is no evil, just a relativistic view of what seems "good" to you. as a matter of fact, it's all relative.

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
there is no evil, just a relativistic view of what seems "good" to you. as a matter of fact, it's all relative.

So, the only thing wrong with wanton cruelty to children is the fact that I don't like it. I have seen the light.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
there is no evil, just a relativistic view of what seems "good" to you. as a matter of fact, it's all relative.

Damn right. How (relatively) lucky for you at least your mama chose "life". Are the rest of homo sap also (relatively) lucky that that was her choice?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
Presumably then no one can think of any behavior, not the person, the behavior of itself, "evil"?

Another minor quirk for those who believe "all is relative". You've been asked before, but alway demur: What is the source of your absolute morals?

[Prospero]

The interesting thing about "evil" is that an person is incapcable of committing an act that they would truly consider "evil". Consider Hitler, for example, whom millions wouldn't hesitate to apply the term "evil". Yet, did he consider his actions? Of course not! He saw his actions as a means of achieving glory for Germany and setting himself in the rather cushy position of Ruler of Everything Worth Ruling.

Or, how about another character of infamous noteriety: John Wayne Gacy. Now, here we have a serial killer that drugged, kidnapped, raped and murdered over 30 boys. And yet, he was well liked by almost everyone who knew him. He was naturally charismatic and volunteered almost all of his time in efforts to help the community. So, how do you classify an individual that obviously wanted to do good, but due to self-loathing because of his homosexuality, he developed an antisocial personality disorder and sociopathic tendencies. He dressed as a clown, "Jojo" to entertain kids at a children's hospital, even, then would pick up a teenage boy, handcuff him and choke him to death while raping him. Would he be comsidered evil? He didn't consider his actions evil, merely the only way he knew of dealing with the incalculable stress of having his life continually upset by his homosexuality. So, he took his frustration out on his object of desire.

So, would the insane be classified as "evil" when they obviously don't have enough self-control over their own actions to limit themselves from doing that which all of society would claim as morally reprehensible or do we leave them as exceptions to the rule because their perceptions of "evil" doesn't consist of killing, for example.

But if killing is still considered "evil", what do we say about the executioner? It is all well and good that he is society's representative to carry out the collective's decision in regards to justice, but he's still terminating a human's existence, which falls squarely within the limits of what most would consider "evil".

I would posit that "evil" cannot exist in any human. "Evil" is that which the observer finds himself incapable of perpetrating due to conscience. No being considers himself "evil", though there are those that claim as much, even if they are clearly deluded in so thinking and actually just enjoy scoffing at societal norms of acceptable behavior. Due, additionally, to the transient nature of "evil", therefore, I find it impossible to see a correct application of the word as more than a concept. As a label, it is impossibly, incorrectly applied.

So, just going back to the post that referred to "evil" as a four letter word which should remained unused in common conversation, I'm inclined to agree, though on the grounds that there is no correct application of the term except as a concept akin to "perfect", which could be another post in and of itself.

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by gentlehorse


So, the only thing wrong with wanton cruelty to children is the fact that I don't like it. I have seen the light. glad i have made a convert of you:D . i'm sure that we both dislike "wanton cruelty to children", but i'm also sure that the person perpetrating it derives some pleasure or "good" from it. i'm not saying i condone it, i'm just saying that you can't say things are just the way they are arbitrarily.

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by hammegk


Damn right. How (relatively) lucky for you at least your mama chose "life". Are the rest of homo sap also (relatively) lucky that that was her choice? yeah that is relatively lucky for me, although sometimes i wish i were never born. as for the rest of you homo sapiens, i guess the answer is relative to whether you like me or not. do you lke me? gimme kisses!

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Prospero
The interesting thing about "evil" is that an person is incapcable of committing an act that they would truly consider "evil".
This is just false. False. People are capable of it. Many times they feel badly afterwards, and try to justify it, but sometimes they don't bother.

So, how do you classify an individual that obviously wanted to do good, but due to self-loathing because of his homosexuality, he developed an antisocial personality disorder and sociopathic tendencies.
You classify them as a sociopath. What's the difficulty here?

You seem to be under the impression that people are either slavering demons wholly given over to evil at every turn, or angles incapable of doing what they know to be wrong. The simple fact is, everyone - including you, yourself - is capable of the most horrific indifference and cruelty. Whether or not you excersize that capacity is an entirely different matter, but I assure you it is there.

The Nazis shoved Jews into ovens all day long, and then went home to their wives and children. Hitler loved dogs, and was an exemplary dog owner. If I had met Hilter, and all we talked about was dogs, I would have liked him. So would you.

Evil is when you let your desires overwhelm your conscience: when you do something to someone that you would not want done to you. People do this all the time, like when they cut someone off in traffic. That's a very small evil, but it is still evil. We don't normally call it that, because we prefer the sanitized, unrealistic pretense that we are Good and thus incapable of Evil. This pretense is not only false, it is likely to leave you unprepared and vulnerable. The rod that bends is stronger than the rod that shatters.

Your conception of evil is naive, unrealistic, and simple-minded.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by hgc
You've been asked before, but alway demur: What is the source of your absolute morals?
I can't answer for Hammy, but the source of my absolute morals is biology and mathematics.

[roger]

In support of Yahzi's point, I recommend the book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Hannah Arendt recounts the life and subsequent trial of Eichmann for crimes against humanity that he commited during the Holocaust.

Arendt's thesis, which was and still is widely argued, is that evil is 'banal' - that one doesn't have to be a raving monster to commit atrocities, but merely be mild-mannered, and unwilling to question orders.

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that "[anyone] is capable of the most horrific indifference and cruelty" - some people would resist doing these acts no matter the pressure applied to them, but I suspect that my disagreement rests largely on the definition of "capable", and so I won't belabor it.

In any case, it's an important book, and I heartily recommend reading it to anybody.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahzi

I can't answer for Hammy, but the source of my absolute morals is biology and mathematics.
Perhaps biology plays a part, but math? Did someone finally write the book I've previously suggested?

I rather suspect the source of your morals -- like mine & everyone else's not very "absolute" at all -- was the cultural conditioning you received from parents, relatives, peers, teachers, media, etc particularly during the first few years of life. Religion, or lack thereof, as it effected/affected you and all those sources was part of the conditioning.

Then, who decides a behavior of yours is "evil"? You, or the society around you? I'd say in the final analysis, might makes right and society, either through religion or by Law makes the decision. Clubs beat fists, guns beat clubs, the best armed groups of men having a common cause prevail; history as I read it strongly suggests religion has been a significant factor in providing that common cause. The alternative is dictatorship and enforcement by force of the Emporer's wishes (or actually, of his minions who try to guess what he would prefer).

I fear that multicultural everything-is relative societies will always be overcome by opponents united by a common cause. For the US, can you say fascism? What would previous dictators have managed with weapons, technology, and trained police/military groups as are now available?

[hgc]

Well, I am flabbergasted.

Hammy, you have described your view of the source of morals, and it looks to me like a pretty fair description of moral relativity, and a reasonable explanation of how this works in human societies.

So why, then, do you stick your nose up at so-called materialists and atheists for being moral relativists when the non-divine, relativistic moral source is what you believe in anyway?

[Upchurch]

heh. hammegk acting hypocritical? No, surely not!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc

So why, then, do you stick your nose up at so-called materialists and atheists for being moral relativists when the non-divine, relativistic moral source is what you believe in anyway?

The point is not what I believe, or what you believe, is "moral". Either you live with the societal/cultural definition of the day, or you tend to weaken rather than strengthen that societies' ability to find unifying common cause.

[Edit, add link & comment]
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Federer20030924.shtml

Federer says it more succinctly than most, imo.

Which will you prefer for the future -- if history repeats itself and a culturally divided US falls from warring within and/or under foreign attack--Fascism, Islam, or "the barbarians".


Uppie , you following me around? Have fun; I find it humorous.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

The point is not what I believe, or what you believe, is "moral". Either you live with the societal/cultural definition of the day, or you tend to weaken rather than strengthen that societies' ability to find unifying common cause.Yeah, right. What again does this have to do with whether or not a person is an atheist or a materalist?

[Edit, add link & comment]
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Federer20030924.shtml

Federer says it more succinctly than most, imo.

Which will you prefer for the future -- if history repeats itself and a culturally divided US falls from warring within and/or under foreign attack--Fascism, Islam, or "the barbarians". You seem to subscribe to this fantastic notion that there are rights that the government cannot, in theory, take away, ie., those from God. But how should a government determine which rights are God-given and which are under secular authority? Does the government have to employ clerics to advise what its laws should be? What of the segments of the governed that have different notions of what their God-given rights are? (You know, religious diversity.) You can see where this is going. Theocracy.

This is just scratching the surface of why our government should not address religious questions with legal authority.

So now I'll ask the same old question: What is the source of this morality that is God-given? And no, the answer is not contained in the question. When I ask for source, I'm looking for something that is verifiable. You see, "bible" is not a verifiable as a God-given source.

Uppie , you following me around? Have fun; I find it humorous. No one is following you around, hammy. You're not that fascinating.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
...No one is following you around, hammy. You're not that fascinating.
Actions belie words. So what else is new, chump?


As to your questions read Santayana and try to understand him.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

Actions belie words. So what else is new, chump?


As to your questions read Santayana and try to understand him. Case closed. Assertions unsupported.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
Case closed. Assertions unsupported.
Yeah, it would be a wonderful world if the proof -- or disproof -- of assertions actually effected that world, quick.

My unsupported assertions will be proved or disproved at the pace societies move (er, you know, it's a subject called "history" --try reading some with understanding) not by the words you & I type on a bbs.

Your readings apparently persuade you of the effectiveness of non-religion/moral relativity as a positive effect for long-term societal welfare; I disagree. I hope I'm wrong.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yeah, it would be a wonderful world if the proof -- or disproof -- of assertions actually effected that world, quick.

My unsupported assertions will be proved or disproved at the pace societies move (er, you know, it's a subject called "history" --try reading some with understanding) not by the words you & I type on a bbs.

Your readings apparently persuade you of the effectiveness of non-religion/moral relativity as a positive effect for long-term societal welfare; I disagree. I hope I'm wrong.

Lemmie get this straight hammegk:

Are you saying that you favor a monolithic culture and morality for a nation state more due to pragmatic concerns than a sense that the religion/morality in place is universal truth?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yeah, it would be a wonderful world if the proof -- or disproof -- of assertions actually effected that world, quick.I didn't complain that you didn't prove you assertion, but that you didn't support it. None of what we do here in this forum affects the world, except in the usual way that conversations among private individuals make a difference.My unsupported assertions will be proved or disproved at the pace societies move (er, you know, it's a subject called "history" --try reading some with understanding) not by the words you & I type on a bbs. I don't know if it'll ever be proved or disproved, if it hasn't already. But my problem is that I don't understand what your assertion is at this point. On the one hand you gave a detailed explanation of your belief above that reads to me like a non-divine, relativistic source of morals in human societies, and on the other hand, you deride so-called atheists and materialists as moral relativists. Whici is it?Your readings apparently persuade you of the effectiveness of non-religion/moral relativity as a positive effect for long-term societal welfare; I disagree. I hope I'm wrong.So I guess the problem here is the definition of moral relativity. It is hard to separate religion and morality, only because there have been so few non-religious societies in history, and religious societies seem to think that their morality is derived from supernatural sources, or at least is tied to their gods in some way. But do you actually think that a non-religious person has less of a stake in, and puts less emphasis on, the need for a common set of rules by which we live our lives, so as to be civilized? Many of those rules are encoded into law, and many others are just part of the common set of behaviors that we adopt and hope that others will also adopt in respect to ourselves (golden rule). I see no need for religion to accomplish this.

[hammegk]

Thanks for the intelligent comments/questions.

I may not have the opportunity to respond for a couple days, but [arnie=on] I'll be back! [arnie=off] :)

[jimmygun]

Let's say I wish to rule a particular society. Not justly or humanely or fairly but just to rule. Of course I don't have more right to rule others than the others I rule so I come up with a concept of a supernatural being that rules us all. Let's say I name that supernatural being... oh I don't know...God?

Now let's say I can convince the majority that I alone can interpret the signs of god and I alone can interpret the desires of this god. Of course I won't be able to get all the people of the society to follow me as there will be some who oppose me for what ever reason. Do I argue with them? Try to reason with them? No of course not. I have no arguement, and my authority is not based on reason, just superstition and fear.

What do I do with those that oppose me? If the god I created is all powerful and all knowing and all seeing then anyone who would dare to oppose him (me) must be at the other end of the scale...evil! Tada! I now have a term which will put all my opposition into a category repugnant to my followers.

I do not deem that opposition to have any validity, I don't allow that we can exist on the same earth with different points of view. I simply dismiss him with a convenient label....evil. It is something everyone who listens to my preaching will understand without questioning...evil.

See how it goes?

[hammegk]

After jimmygun, not much else to say, is there? Rulers who perpetuate their societies -- holding against all comers -- provide "successful" societies, imo.

Which is the oldest profession; courtesan, or Priest?

Repeating myself -- deja vu all over again -- Rulers wIll exist, they will define "evil" and apply it to their societies via force. Which atheistic (which is at heart anarchist every-man-for-himself) society has made a positive contribution to mankind with that society enduring for a historically significant span?

In recent times atheistic societies have certainly made historically significant contributions, none for the better imo. Those societies all ceased to exist often not outliving a single Ruler.

[jimmygun]

Perhaps if "Atheists" rose up, siezed power and started murdering their opposition then they could form a society, whitewash all its crimes, and claim the moral high ground.

Perhaps your humble opinion of atheist society is wrong. I know no atheists who adopt the anarchaic, every man for himself attitude. That is a strawman argument and it does not apply to anything other than your humble opinion.

[uruk]

Those societies all ceased to exist often not outliving a single Ruler.

I dunno, China seems to be going strong.

[Foodbunny]

Evil is too subjective and too loaded of a term to have any real use in serious conversation, in my opinion. If you find what someone has done horrendous it's better to say what they did and let the people you are conversing with draw their own judgements then to just say that they were "evil".

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Foodbunny
Evil is too subjective and too loaded of a term to have any real use in serious conversation, in my opinion. If you find what someone has done horrendous it's better to say what they did and let the people you are conversing with draw their own judgements then to just say that they were "evil".

Good argument for multiculturalism & moral relativity. Is that how you raise your children?


Originally posted by uruk

I dunno, China seems to be going strong.

You must have a point, but damned if I see it. I get to bring up China on my side of the argument.


Originally posted by jimmygun

Perhaps if "Atheists" rose up, siezed power and started murdering their opposition then they could form a society, whitewash all its crimes, and claim the moral high ground.
Perhaps if you defended any moral gtound other than what appeals to you, today, you might find a broader support for your opinion. In case you hadn't noticed, that is how nation-states form and perpetuate themselves.



Perhaps your humble opinion of atheist society is wrong. I know no atheists who adopt the anarchaic, every man for himself attitude. That is a strawman argument and it does not apply to anything other than your humble opinion.
Yeah, I know that is your humble opinion.

Let's discuss the successes societies ruled by atheism have enjoyed. Oh, I know; human nature has changed for the better in the last 100 years (or is it only 50), and we are now all so intelligent & good-hearted that mans inhumanity to man will no longer be a problem.

Bah! :rolleyes:

[jimmygun]

Do you claim that all positive advancements are the result of religious based governments? I would dissagree with you whole heartedly. It was not until the iron grip of religion was relaxed that mankind started to make giant, positive strides in science.

How many computers did Jim Bakker invent? How many new crops were invented by Rex Humbard? What pleasure pastimes were invented by the Catholic church? All these examples have had to run the biggoted gauntlet of religion just to be heard, let alone developed.

When the common man threw off his religious shackles he was free to inquire, to seek, to teach and transfer his knowledge. Today we live in a society that is trying to actually put a real barrier between the state and religion because it has proven to be absolutely imperative for us to go forward. Those that would reattach the state to religion would stiffle and punish free thinking.

[c4ts]

The causes of a successful society are so numerous that you cannot simply point to something like establishment and determine it to be the cause. In fact, religion is often so politicized it's indistinguishable from law, especially with ancient civilizations.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Do you claim that all positive advancements are the result of religious based governments? I would dissagree with you whole heartedly. It was not until the iron grip of religion was relaxed that mankind started to make giant, positive strides in science.

How many computers did Jim Bakker invent? How many new crops were invented by Rex Humbard? What pleasure pastimes were invented by the Catholic church? All these examples have had to run the biggoted gauntlet of religion just to be heard, let alone developed.

When the common man threw off his religious shackles he was free to inquire, to seek, to teach and transfer his knowledge. Today we live in a society that is trying to actually put a real barrier between the state and religion because it has proven to be absolutely imperative for us to go forward. Those that would reattach the state to religion would stiffle and punish free thinking.

:clap:

[David Wilson]

Originally posted by hgc
You've been asked before, but alway demur: What is the source of your absolute morals?

Hello.

If we define absolute morals as a epoch relative category{meaning, they are absolute within a certain time frame, but should be changed according to necessity}, then we have a starting point for worldwide agreement.

Reason is any individuals guide and can only be referenced to "life", so we define what we consider the basics of life and we develop doctrines to support those basics.

The basics CANNOT be determined exclusively using a pain/pleasure dynamic...reason must also be introduced and must be referenced to life, we need to use reason to hypothesize ideals of behaviour to overcome appeals by mascochists and crazies in general and to create minimum standards of behaviour...behaviour reflecting thinking and combined with the undisputable reality of human existence{such as everyone needs air/water}, we create an absolute epoch relative moral code.

Of course, in this era of scientism and capitalism, it would be reprehensible to devote our energies to helping every member of society regardless of age or socio-economic status.

History proves that mankind links its behaviour and ethics with its cosmological ethos, thus ethics and cosmology co-define each other and this obviously has an impact on people's welfare, especially if the cosmology is limited or disturbed and referenced to "inanimate matter" such as within our current era of scientism.

[uruk]

You must have a point, but damned if I see it. I get to bring up China on my side of the argument.

You made a statement that atheistic societies don't outlast their
rulers. China is "officially" an atheistic society. Chaiman Mao
has been dead for sometime now and the chinese government
seems to be unchanged (at least idealisticly) and still continues to survive despite U.S. and U.N. sanctions, a failed revolt. and other pressures which toppled the U.S.S.R.

Morals, ethics, and "good and evil" are subjective in societies.

Just read this weeks commentary concerning laws and the bible.
The bible says selling your daughter into slavery is A.O.K. Good and moral conduct by ancient biblical standards. Bad by todays standards. So is the bible really a good source for morals and ethics?

From Randi's commentary
6. Each citizen shall have the right to sell his daughter(s) into slavery, setting his own price. (Exodus 21:7)

Some questions I have for you are, The U.S. dropping two atomic bombs on Japanese civillians. Was that good or evil? Which point a view is the moraly justifiable one and why? Which standards do you use to determin which? Are those standards universal and why?

My personal opinion is that human nature really hasn't improved over the centuries. We have loftier ideals, but I don't see anyone as a society living up to those goals. Individuals yes, but not societies.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by c4ts
The causes of a successful society are so numerous that you cannot simply point to something like establishment and determine it to be the cause. In fact, religion is often so politicized it's indistinguishable from law, especially with ancient civilizations.

Numerous? You actually believe that?

What? Law & Order, stable economic system/currency, borders defined & defended (i.e. an army), infrastructure for travel/communication, stable food/water(&power) sources, sense of civic pride(a lingua franca, commonality of basic aims, continuity over generations), for example. Do you think anarchy stabilizes a society?

What these stable societies provide is continuity & a framework that allows advances to be made, especially in technological fields.

Shared religion is a good source of "civic commonality", at least historically.


uruk: You overlooked the word "often". Think Pol Pot & 3rd Reich. USSR made it 70+ years, China is now at 50+.

ReUR ?'s: Sorry, morals & ethics are societal, and who has ever, or will ever, apply them to "the enemy"? Geopolitics including war; when is that "moral'?

[uruk]

hammenek wrote uruk: You overlooked the word "often". Think Pol Pot & 3rd Reich. USSR made it 70+ years, China is now at 50+.

point well taken. I have to disagree with you though about
Hitler and the third reich. Hitler was definitely a self proclaimed christian. Checkout the site below. Or read Mien Kampf


http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

[hammegk]

Originally posted by uruk


point well taken. I have to disagree with you though about
Hitler and the third reich. Hitler was definitely a self proclaimed christian. Checkout the site below. Or read Mien Kampf



Er, sure. We had a naturalist here state he was a Fundy Christian. I don't believe him either.

Stephen Jay Gould; what a pompous joke. He may have actually believed what he wrote, but who will ever know? If we had asked him he might have said he was god. :eek:

[uruk]

If you don't believe Gould, read Mien Kampf. Written by Hitler himself. He Proclaims himself to be a christian. He felt he was following the good ole christian values set forth by those that brought you the inquisition, the crusades, indulgances, witch trials, manifest destiny, etc...

Religion , Like any other institution of man, is more often than not abused by people to control the masses or for personal gain.